This just might be evolutionary biology’s most fundamental error:
From high school biology exams to university tenure and funding applications, all must work under the umbrella of evolution. New research is not merely described in terms of evolution, the very data are interpreted according to evolution from the first measurement. If a new fossil form is discovered, it is described as a result of gradualism if it is similar to known forms. On the other hand, it is described as a result of punctuated equilibrium if it is unique. One way or another, evolution is the narrative. And while it may be that, in practice, science needs to work in this way, this overwhelming dominance means that, ironically, evolutionary studies often fail to provide evidence for evolution. This is because evolution is assumed in the very interpretation of the data. This logical technicality, however, often does not stop evolutionists from making high claims about the evidence.
The assumption that evolution is true is baked into evolutionary studies. The results are not theory-neutral, and it would be circular to use the results as evidence for evolution.
[From Darwin's God: When Evidence for Evolution is Actually Evolution of Evidence]
Read the rest for the full context.
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
Well this is silly. Evolution has been independently tested, lots, using the same methods used elsewhere in statistics and science. And it has passed. Evolution should be treated no differently than every other part of science.
Recent example, and see refs for more:
A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
Douglas L. Theobald
Nature
465, 219–222
Date published: (13 May 2010)
DOI: 10.1038/nature09014
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
Given that we’ve exchanged arguments about this in the past, I just want to clarify your position.
I’ve presented arguments in the past that show that while its possible that the world was designed to look evolved, there are vastly more possible designed worlds that do not look evolved than there are designed worlds that do look evolved. Therefore, all things being equal, and making no assumptions about the designer, design is highly improbable.
IIRC, your answer to this is to say that probability cannot be applied to the decisions of the designer.
If my memory is correct, then I am curious about your reasoning.
One possibility is that you think that if we believe there are 100 possibilities, we’re not a priori permitted to assign a 1% probability to each outcome. That is, you think it is wrong to assume the probability distribution is flat in the absence of evidence of its flatness.
This is to be contrasted with, say, a deck of cards. We know that a shuffled deck under controlled conditions gives 1 in 52 odds of drawing any specific card, and we know this fact from inductive evidence. We know from experience that the distribution is indeed flat.
However, if we can’t assume unknown distributions are flat, then we can’t conclude any event is more probable than any other. The probability of any event that occurs in less than controlled conditions becomes inscrutable. Even the deck of cards example won’t stand up in a casino because every real event in history lacks some degree of control. The Resurrection doesn’t stand up, nor do arguments based on fine-tuning, nor arguments against conspiracy theories, etc.
My question is, is it rational to assume probability distributions are flat (all things being equal) when we lack evidence to the contrary?
dl, you’re introducing a rather tangential topic. Give me a week or two and I’ll devote a bog post to it so we can keep this one on topic.
Nick, though I can’t entirely tell from the abstract you’ve linked to, it does appear to be a possible counter-example. I would be willing to accept that. What do you think, though, of Cornelius Hunter’s examples (which I could multiply many, many times over) wherein evolution is “proved” circularly? Do you consider that science at its best?
FYI, Mr. Hunter gets the logic behind punctuated equilibrium and gradualism exactly backwards.
Punctuated equilibrium is supported by evidence of stasis (if morphologies change very little over time) where as gradualism is supported by large collections of essentially unique fossils.
This is because of the extremely poor sampling in most linages.
Stasis. is. data.
Looks to me like he wrote it carelessly.
I think there’s a point he was trying to make there, which is that the fossil evidence says one thing, and it says another thing, and it’s not at all clear what it’s really saying, but that doesn’t matter to evolutionists because it fits naturalistic neo-Darwinism no matter what it says.
Do you agree that’s what we was trying to say, and if so, what do you think of it?
(I would add, there’s nothing in the fossil record that could ever be found—or not found—that could falsify naturalistic neo-Darwinism except a break in the expected sequence. So the fossil record supports a certain sequence of life’s appearing and/or going extinct. It’s a long leap from there to being absolutely, irrevocably and unalterably forever certain of naturalistic explanations.)
Why is there an evolution-creation debate? In spite of the fact that the evolution hypothesis is stuck in step 3 of the 7- scientific method and there are 4 gaps in the hypothesis that evolutionary scientists admit cannot yet be explained, Evolutionists have already won. Evolution is taught in public schools, creationism is prohibited. Evolutionists have won in the courts. The media unanimously supports evolution. Why don’t Evolutionists simply ignore the Creationists’ objections? Or, why not point out that Creationism is not within the purview of science because God is not a falsifiable hypothesis nor can he be proved by science?
Consider the fact that of the 6 major theological positions on creation, 3 allow for evolution, albeit with a divine influence of some sort, such as to fill those 4 gaps that scientist are struggling with. There are 2 reactions when a Creationist proposed theistic evolution as an answer to the incomplete hypothesis testing and the 4 gaps. An evolutionary scientist would respond by admitting there is no scientific explanation for the gaps, as yet, and dismiss the influence of God as something outside the purview of science. The Evolutionist philosopher, however, becomes extremely agitated at the mention of God because Evolutionism is about atheism, not science.
As a philosophy, Evolutionism is not held to the rigor of hard science – the scientific method can be ignored. As a philosophy, Evolutionism can object to theism whenre hard science cannot comment. Evolutionism is a major cornerstone of Marxism and Human Secularism because is supports those philosophies built on atheism. Twenty-five percent of the Humanist Manifesto is devoted to opposition to religion and theism, and the establishment of evolution and atheism. As long as there is a God, those philosophies fail. But Darwin supplied the “missing link” to their philosophies,; a way to explain how we got here – without a God.
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but theism and atheism are. So when a supporter of evolution attacks creation (and usually the Creationist), he does so as a philosopher, not as a scientist. And, when a Creationist opposed evolution, he must do so as a philosopher/theologian – not as a scientist. An excellent resource regarding the creation-evolution debate can be found at http://sechumanism.blogspot.com/p/secular-humanism.html